Holding subsidiries

Yes because XYZ has 92% control over lmn.

The profits/incomes  from it will be reported as per NCI.

It’s a related party as well. 

But XYZ has no control over lmn.

LAG company is not a subsidiary, neither is lmn company, so XYZ cannot be called as a holding company. 

Sorry I meant XYZ is holding company for LMN. LMNis not holding to LAG. XYZ is not holding to LAG.

Why xyz not holding co for LAG hold 13% directly and 40% indirectly

Because it is not a subsidiary. It purchased 13% shares meaning, investment. You need to have >50% to be called as subsidiary

Mr. Gomes, 13 % directly hold share by xyz to LAG, in addition to that 40% hold through its subsidiaries of LMN of  LAG shares.

XYZ is hold directly 13% of LAG  and Balance 40% through its subsidiaries. it means controlling intrest of XYZ in lag i s exist

Your thinking right, but investment interest is different from having control. Every year they get income from 13%. Besides, LMN will show this 40% as associate. While consolidating, its impossible to club them together. 

Section 2(46) of the Companies Act, 2013 defines Holding Company. The company is said to be the holding company if that particular company holds/owns at least 50% of the other companies

Practically, Its not Holding Company.

You have to check the definition of Holding Company.

It is a simple view from the definition that it should have the authority to make management decisions, influences and controls the company’s board of directors. A holding company may exist for the sole purpose of controlling and managing subsidiary companies. When we all know FTVPL investments lack for 13% investment interest. An associate is measured at cost or FVTPL as well and sometimes it is not c silicates when associate does not distribute its profits to holding company, or associate will be disposed in the future. 

https://blog.ipleaders.in/difference-between-holding-and-subsidiary-company/amp/

1) D has 3 wholly-owned subsidiary who hold 30% each in P, but D has no holding in P. How should P be consolidated?

D exercise control over more than 50% of total voting power of P, indirectly through D’s wholly-owned subsidiaries. Therefore, irrespective of whether or not A exercises any direct control over the operations of P, D would have to consolidate P directly as a subsidiary, in preparing its CFS.

Hope we get better references. This is how it is, it is not holding but will consolidate.